Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawPoliceWhistleblowing

Whistleblowing: police officer dismissed for taking matters into his own hands

by Guy Lamb 4 Jul 2014
by Guy Lamb 4 Jul 2014

In DLA Piper’s latest case report, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that a police officer who made protected disclosures was dismissed after taking matters into his own hands and becoming difficult to manage because he was not satisfied with the action taken following the concerns that he had raised, and that he was not dismissed for blowing the whistle.

XpertHR resources

Employee’s misconduct not protected by whistleblowing legislation

EAT considers school assistant’s whistleblowing claim

Whistleblowing employees fairly dismissed for disclosing concerns to the media

Panayiotou v Kernaghan and others EAT/0436/13

Facts

Mr Panayiotou was a police officer in the Hampshire Constabulary. During his employment, he made a number of protected disclosures to senior officers regarding his colleagues’ treatment of victims of rape, child abuse and domestic violence.

Mr Panayiotou’s concerns were investigated and, for the most part, upheld. However, Mr Panayiotou was not satisfied with the action taken following his complaints and sought to take matters into his own hands. He campaigned for the police force to take the actions that he believed were appropriate in the circumstances. In doing so, he raised a number of grievances and became particularly difficult to manage.

After a period of absence on sick leave, Mr Panayiotou was dismissed by his employers. He subsequently brought a whistleblowing claim, alleging that he had been subjected to various detriments as a result of the protected disclosures. He also claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed because the protected disclosures were the principal reason for his dismissal.

Employment tribunal decision

The employment tribunal considered that Mr Panayiotou’s employer had had to devote a great deal of management time to responding to his correspondence and complaints and that, unless they were dealt with as he wished, Mr Panayiotou would continue to pursue the matter relentlessly. The tribunal found that Mr Panayiotou was dismissed because of his long-term sickness absence, together with the manner in which he had pursued his complaints. In doing so, the tribunal separated the fact that Mr Panayiotou had made protected disclosures from the manner in which he went about the process of dealing with those disclosures.

Grounds for appeal

There were two principal grounds of appeal. The first element of the appeal was that the tribunal had wrongly concluded that once an employee had made a number of protected disclosures, there came a time when subsequent disclosures were no longer protected. In essence, the tribunal wrongly concluded that it had become part of a “campaign”, with the effect that any actions taken by the employer that were influenced by those later disclosures would not amount to an unlawful detriment.

The second limb of the appeal was that it was impermissible for the tribunal to have concluded that the way in which Mr Panayiotou had pursued his complaints could be separated from the fact that he had made protected disclosures. On this reasoning, it followed that the tribunal could not have held that his dismissal had arisen by reason of former and not the latter.

EAT decision

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The EAT rejected Mr Panayiotou’s appeal. It held that the tribunal had not purported to say that once an employee had made a number of protected disclosures, there comes a time when subsequent disclosures are no longer protected. In the EAT’s view, the tribunal had sought to distinguish between the fact that Mr Panayiotou made protected disclosures and the manner in which he pursued the issues that had been raised. The fact that a protected disclosure had been made is separable from the manner in which Mr Panayiotou conducted the campaign that followed.

The EAT held that the tribunal did not err in its approach to deciding that Mr Panayiotou had not been subjected to detriments on the ground that he had made protected disclosures, or in deciding that the reason or principal reason for his dismissal was not the fact that he had made such disclosures. The tribunal was therefore entitled to conclude that Mr Panayiotou had been dismissed because of the manner in which he dealt with making protected disclosures and not for having made the disclosures. Therefore, a factor related to a protected disclosure might, in certain circumstances, be separable from the actual act of disclosing the information itself.

Guy Lamb

Guy Lamb is a partner at DLA Piper.

previous post
War for talent – time to move from high potentials to all employees
next post
Civil Service and M&S win at enei Awards 2014

You may also like

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

NHS worker awarded £29k after Darth Vader comparison

8 May 2025

‘Unacceptable to question integrity’ of Supreme Court judgment

2 May 2025

Trans ex-judge to appeal Supreme Court biological sex...

29 Apr 2025

EHRC: Interim update on single-sex spaces draws criticism

28 Apr 2025

Firearms officers to be granted anonymity

25 Apr 2025

Police who fail vetting checks face automatic dismissal

23 Apr 2025

Opposition to Supreme Court sex ruling is ‘wishful...

22 Apr 2025

Supreme Court transgender ruling: ‘common sense’ or ‘incredibly...

17 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+